Sane NIPCC Scientists Trump Insane IPCC Political Alarmism

To the Honorable Congressman X:

I first took an interest in global warming after I read the IPCC’s 1990 report entitled, “Climate Change – The IPCC Scientific Assessment,” and noticed it failed to consider water clarity (turbidity) and its effects on depth of solar heating. As an avid skin/scuba diver and water sports enthusiast, I had observed in the mid-1980s that the Army Corps of Engineers’ (ACOE) Mississippi River levy system largely prevents annual Spring flooding, channeling the lions share of alluvial runoff to proceed downstream.  This fact is well noted by the Mississippi River Delta’s increased growth rate since the levy system was installed.  Not only has this result in significantly increased growth of the Mississippi River Delta, but it also significantly increases the turbidity of the waters in the Gulf of Mexico, leading to both warmer surface temperatures and colder temperatures at depth.  This phenomenon is repeated around the world, wherever levies and similar river flood mitigation techniques are used.

When I noticed the IPCC’s initial 1990 report lacked any mention or even consideration of water turbidity and heating depth, I began to wonder what else was missing. Indeed, over the next two decades I consulted with a number of scientists on the issue and we found plenty of gaping holes in the IPCC’s reports (1990, 1995, 2001, 2007, 2014).  I also discovered that scientists had broken into two camps: Those who wholeheartedly backed the IPCC assessments and those who reluctantly admitted the IPCC reports both fail to consider a number of factors affecting or mitigating climate change while summarily dismissing others.  As Mr. Praeger has resoundingly documented, the “97% of climate scientists agree” argument is pure bunk.  The latter group and I have highlighted many missing elements, efforts which eventually lead to the creation of the NIPCC:

The Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) is an international panel of nongovernment scientists and scholars who have come together to present a comprehensive, authoritative, and realistic assessment of the science and economics of global warming. Because it is not a government agency, and because its members are not predisposed to believe climate change is caused by human greenhouse gas emissions, NIPCC is able to offer an independent “second opinion” of the evidence reviewed – or not reviewed – by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) on the issue of global warming.”

Although I possess both bachelor of science and master of science degrees, I also hold an MBA. I graduated top of my class in both masters programs. My educational background is heavy on both engineering and business, specifically, finance, management, and administration. Thus, when read the Conclusion to the NIPCC’s report entitled, “Climate Change Reconsidered II: Fossil Fuels,” it wholeheartedly confirmed literally thousands of hours of previous discussions, while acknowledging the IPCC’s numerous oversights:

“IPCC and national governments around the world
claim the negative impacts of global warming on
human health and security, occurring now or likely to
occur in the future, more than offset the benefits that
come from the use of fossil fuels. This claim lacks
any scientific or economic basis. Nearly all the
impacts of fossil fuel use on human well-being are
net positive (benefits minus costs) or are simply
unknown. The alleged negative human health impacts
due to air pollution are greatly exaggerated by
researchers who violate the scientific method and rely
too heavily on epidemiological studies finding weak
relative risks. The alleged negative impacts on human
security due to climate change depend on tenuous
chains of causality that find little support in the peer
reviewed literature.

“IPCC and its national counterparts have not
conducted proper cost-benefit analyses of fossil fuels,
global warming, or regulations designed to force a
transition away from fossil fuels, nor are they likely
to do so given their political agendas. The CBAs
conducted for this volume find the social benefits of
fossil fuels exceed the costs by a wide margin. A
forced reduction of GHG emissions to 90 percent
below 1990 levels by 2050 would require that world
GDP in 2050 be reduced to only 4% of what it is
projected to be in that year. Most regulations aimed
at reducing GHG emissions have costs that are
hundreds and even thousands of times greater than
their benefits.

“The global war on fossil fuels, which commenced
in earnest in the 1980s and reached a fever pitch in
the second decade of the twenty-first century, was
never founded on sound science or economics. The
authors of and contributors to Climate Change
Reconsidered II: Fossil Fuels urge the world’s
policymakers to acknowledge this truth and end that
war.”

Congressman X, I wholeheartedly encourage you and your colleagues in Congress and the executive branch to review the NIPCC’s “Climate Change Reconsidered” series of volumes (http://climatechangereconsidered.org/). Therein you will find the sanity that so elegantly counters the IPCC’s irrational and alarming projections which lacks significant data elements which run counter to their idealism and mantras.

As the American Thinker well notes:

“How could two international teams of scientists, economists, and other experts arrive at opposite conclusions? Therein lies a story.

“The IPCC is a political organization, not a scientific body. It was formed by the United Nations in 1988 for the purpose of establishing the need for a global solution to the alleged problem of anthropogenic climate change. Note that the mission of the IPCC was never to study the causes of climate change; were that the case, it might have devoted some of its billions of dollars in revenues over the years to examining solar cycles, changes in ocean currents, the sensitivity of climate to greenhouse gases, or the planet’s carbon cycle. The IPCC has spent trivial sums on these issues, and the authors of and contributors to its voluminous reports have few or no credentials in these fields.

“Now consider the NIPCC. It is a scientific body composed of scholars from more than two dozen countries, first convened in 2003 by the great physicist S. Fred Singer and later chaired by another great physicist, Frederick Seitz. The NIPCC’s only purpose is to fact-check the work of the IPCC. It receives no corporate or government funding and so has no hidden agenda or axes to grind. Most of its participants volunteer their time; a few receive token compensation for many hours of effort.

“The NIPCC views the claim that human greenhouse gas emissions are causing climate change to be a hypothesis to be tested, not a preordained conclusion. It asks whether the null hypothesis – that changes in climate are natural variability caused by a multitude of forcings and feedbacks – has been disproven. Its research reveals thousands of studies published in peer-reviewed science journals supporting the null hypothesis, meaning that the IPCC’s mountains of data and expressions of “confidence” are irrelevant, meaningless, and ultimately wrong.”

Indeed, the NIPCC has a number of outstanding reports, and unlike the IPCC’s political attempts to sound scientific, the NIPCC volumes were researched, written, and published by actual scientists:

Climate Change Reconsidered II:

Climate Change Reconsidered:  2011 Interim Report

Climate Change Reconsidered:  2009 IPCC Report

Why Scientists Disagree About Global Warming

Sincerely…

The Lowdown on Anthropogenic Global Warming / Climate Change

As a registered statistician and well-educated scientist (3 degrees and 37 years of experience), I’ve been all over the IPCC’s and others’ data they use to justify the claim that rising CO2 levels are responsible for global warming. Here’s what I found:
 
1. There is indeed evidence that the Earth has gone through a warming period over the last 70 years, one that was interrupted for at least 12 of the 18 years since the turn of the century.
 
2. There is indeed evidence that CO2 levels have also risen during the last 70 years.
 
3. CO2 is indeed a “greenhouse gas,” meaning it tends to trap a portion of IR (infrared) radiation (heat) from being radiated back into space.
 
4. CO2 is by no means the most potent greenhouse gas out there. In fact, both water and methane are far more potent.
 
5. While animal husbandry does produce some methane, termites and microbes produce far more, and deforestation is a leading cause as it interrupts the biological role of methane in the environment.
 
6. Patterns of atmospheric H2O have been significantly changed by aviation. In gaseous (invisible) form, water vapor is a potent greenhouse gas. In condensate and crystallized (cloud) form, H2O reflects sunlight back into space, but it also reflect Earth’s IR energy back to the ground. In most instances, clouds retain more heat to Earth than they protect Earth from acquiring. Both the shape and altitude of the clouds determine the net IR energy flow.
 
7. While CO2 and global warming over the last 70 years are correlated, there is no statistical evidence that either one has caused the other.
 
8. The amount of global warming occurring over the last 70 years is minuscule as compared to the temperature swings associated with the comings and goings of ice ages.
 
9. Prior to the start of the last ice age, the temperature also took a sharp, but small and short swing upward, and it, too, was accompanied by a short rise in CO2 levels.
 
10. We’re about due for another ice age.
 
11. Scientists still discount the role of sunspots, despite the fact that sunspots are strongly correlated with Earth mean temperatures. Since the Earth is certainly not affecting the cycle of the Sun’s sunspots, simple deduction says that sunspots do affect Earth’s climate.
 
12. Scientists who study the dynamics of sunspot formation have determined that sunspots are formed by the Sun’s magnetic activity, which undergoes periodic cyclical change.
 
13. Indications are strong that the Sun is close to entering a period quiessence, where very few sunspots would form, thereby resulting in an accompanying cooling period — even an ice age — here on Earth.
 
My recommandation: Hyper-insulate your house and stock up on snow shovels. Even if you wind up not needing the shovels, you’ll save on cooling. 🙂

The “97%” and why the IPCC, NOAA and other climate data is lacking

A friend of mine recently commented on how two years of data shows a decided cooling trend.  We must be careful to remember the difference between weather, which is what occurs on any given day, week, month, year, and even 11-year sunspot cycle, and climate, which is what occurs over the long haul.
 
Furthermore, statistics being what it is, one or two data points mean nothing. Furthermore, the answer to the question, “How many data points are enough?” depends both on what you’re trying to measure and the nature of the data itself.
 
If you know you’re measuring a straight line, two data points are sufficient to describe the entire line.
 
If you know you’re measuring a parabola, and you know the parabola’s orientation (axis), two points are again sufficient. If you don’t know its orientation, you’ll need three points.
 
If you’re conducting an exit poll at a precinct, measuring whether people are voted for candidate A or Candidate B, and no write-ins were allowed, you need to pick a Confidence Level, say, 99%, a Confidence Interval, say, +/- 3 points, and the population size, say, 35,000 people in the precinct. The answer is a sample size of 653. However, that’s not all, as you need to ensure the respondents are randomly selected throughout the voting period.  The largely liberal news organizations failed to take this into account when they launched their glowing pro-Hillary polls in the 2016 election.
 
 
When you’re talking about climate, however, the samples for each location need to include temperature, humidity, pressure, precipitation types and amounts, cloud types and cloud cover, and solar irradiance on the ground for at least 24 times each day, multiplied by every day for decades — at least thirty years worth, but preferably about 300+, then, multiply times thousands of locations around the world. You also need to measure solar irradiance in space i.e. the Sun’s output, and we’ve had access to that information only over the last 40 years. Finally, we need to correlate the irradiance with sunspot activity and discount the effect of sunspot variability, which can last as much as a century.
 
In all, there’s at least 16 pieces of variable information to be recorded at least hourly at each location, along with at least 12 pieces of constant information for each location.
 
For each location, that comes to 140,160 pieces of variable information each year, times tens of thousands of locations.
 
The best locations for this information are airports. According to the Airports Council International (ACI) World Airport Traffic Report, there are currently 17,678 commercial airports in the world. Most of these report their current conditions to one of several database repositories.
 
The major problem with the IPCC reports, however, is that they’re approach is rather simplistic. They often don’t even know what information to ask because they’re largely tied to the weather model, rather than a physics model. There are a number of relevant variables of which they either completely discount or have never even heard.
 
Local and surrounding terrain features, for example, significantly impact the readings. These “anomalous terrain features” can be mathematically described with via a centroid location, elongation factor, distance, and direction. Winds blowing over a mountain range 200 miles upwind during humid weather are likely to experience more cooling due to cloud formation than they are during dry weather. Similarly, weather stations located near a body of water are affected quite differently when the winds are onshore vs offshore. Even absolutely identical air masses located 500 miles distant will arrive in Kansas bearing quite different properties on a perfectly clear day throughout the entire U.S. depending on whether the air mass traveled up from low-lying Texas, down from the northern latitude Dakotas, or west over mountainous Colorado.
 
The same is true for ocean data. “Mean oceanic surface temperature,” while a good metric, is woefully void of the entire story, as oceans have basins and mountain ranges, too, and even slight shifts in currents can vary “ocean weather” significantly.

Then there’s the mudstream media’s “97% of climatologists agree” meme.  It’s more than a meme, however, as pro-AGP (anthropogenic climate change) forces are now creating videos demonstrating how 97% of climatologists agree…

…while ignoring the reality that their agreement originates from a single errant paper that was picked up by mudstream media itself and spread like wildfire.
New York Times bestselling author Alex Epstein, founder of the Center for Industrial Progress, reveals the origins of the “97%” figure and explains how to think more clearly about climate change in this YouTube video, below:

FYI, here’s the ear-tickeling but blitheringly idiot piece of PBS crap that started this conversation:

Chicken Little vs the IPCC

Now that the Democrat’s have been dethroned, scientists galore are coming out of the woodwork in favor of the truth:

“It is becoming clear that not only do many scientists dispute the asserted global warming crisis, but these skeptical scientists may indeed form a scientific consensus.

“Don’t look now, but maybe a scientific consensus exists concerning global warming after all. Only 36 percent of geoscientists and engineers believe that humans are creating a global warming crisis, according to a survey reported in the peer-reviewed Organization Studies. By contrast, a strong majority of the 1,077 respondents believe that nature is the primary cause of recent global warming and/or that future global warming will not be a very serious problem.”

I hold two science degrees, and a third in business administration. I graduated summa cum laude from both graduate degrees, with a 3.94 our of 4.0 in one, and a 4.0 out of 4.0 in the other. I completed both degrees, along with two full concentrations, one in technology management, the other in project management, in just 2.67 years. I began my collegiate studies in Aerospace Engineering back in 1981.

Since 1986, I have been either a moderator or an administrator on at least one message forum (The Bible BBS, Blacksburg, VA).

I spent 20 years, from 1989 through 2009, flying B-52s and C-130s for the Air Force.

Major non-flying positions included as an instructor and the Asst Director of Academics at a well-known school at Nellis AFB. We taught 60+ Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine, and Coalition students ranging from E-2 through O-6 how to integrate joint firepower on the battlefield everysix weeks.

Between 2003 and 2005, I redesigned the Airlift Request process for the entire Korean Theater of Operations, a task that I was repeatedly told was “impossible, unless you have ten years.” I accomplished it in six months, and was duly recognized for the benefit it conferred to U.S. Forces Korea.

Since 1995, I have been a member of at least one physics, astronomy, or science forum (Bad Astronomy, Universe Today, Physics Forum, Science Forums).

Since 1998, I have been studying the IPCC reports, First through Fifth assessments (1990, 1995, 2001, 2007, and 2014). Although I was “on board” with global warming from the early 1990s through 1998, while examining the IPCC’s detailed documents during the fall of 1998, I began to notice a number of discrepancies, both when compared with external data as well as internal inconsistencies. I came to a logical conclusion that whoever was behind these reports was working primarily off of rhetoric and dogma while cherry-picking their “logical” discourse to match their ideologies, rather than actually following the scientific method. Years later, I learned that John Coleman, co-founder of The Weather Channel, had arrived at the same conclusion. Excerpt:

“Through self study and correspondence courses at Penn State (all while he was working on television full-time) Coleman eventually obtained Professional membership status in the American Meteorological Society and was named AMS Broadcast Meteorologist of the Year in 1982. After ten years of attending AMS National Meetings and studying the papers published in the organization’s journal, Coleman claimed the AMS was driven by political, not scientific, agendas and dropped out the AMS.”

I conclude that what was fomenting in the AMS between 1982 and 1992 lead to the self-seeking establishment of the IPCC, along with the peddling of non-scientific global warming/climate change “doom and gloom” in exchange for some $200 BILLION in government funding over the last couple of decades…

…even if many of them were unaware of the various cognitive biases that lead to their heading down the wrong path.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/02/13/peer-reviewed-survey-finds-majority-of-scientists-skeptical-of-global-warming-crisis/#500a927d171b

Freedom of Speech and of the Press

This article raises a very good question:  “Does the First Amendment protect global warming deniers?”
The answer is, unequivocally and resoundingly “YES.”
No federal, state, county, or local entity, nor any law enforcement or public business may restrict people’s expression concerning the pros freedom of speechand/or cons of various viewpoints on global warming, climate change, denying, etc. We live in the United States of America, which holds both the freedom of speech and the press in the highest regard. This is NOT Nazi Germany, which repressed the vast majority of free speech and severely punished violators.
 
Our First Amendment reads: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
 
First, once they are properly ratified, all amendments are fully a part of the Constitution: “The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses rightsshall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution.” (Article V).
 
Second, although 1A specifically limits Congress from passing any such law, the Supreme Court has repeatedly expanded that through the “the supreme Law of the Land” clause (Article VI) to mean the United States Constitution supersedes all federal, state, county, and local (municipality) law. Thus, no action by any executive, legislative, judicial branch, or by law enforcement or member of the public can legal violate any provision of the Constitution, including “the freedom of speech, or of the press.”
 
Third, countless case law refers to “freedom of speech” as applying to oral utterances, regardless of source, whereas “the press” refers to the written Franklin_the_printer-by-Charles-B-Mills - Young Benjamin at his brother's Printing Pressword, regardless of form (print, offset type, electronic, billboard, etc.). Thus, my blog, as was Benjamin Franklin’s backyard printing press, is every bit as much “the press” as is the New York times. Although Nancy Pelosi would like you to believe otherwise, well, what can I say? She’s the last person I would ever consult on matters Constitutional.
 
Fourth, countless case law willfully ignores the content of free speech when determining whether or not it’s “allowable” under Constitutional law. Thus, t-shirts supporting the murderous revolutionary Che Guevara, are every bit as protected when worn by a teenager cruising the mall as is a t-shirt sporting a happy face.
 
Fifth, the U.S. Supreme Court has continuously upheld very strict scrutiny for the exceedingly few restrictions on freedom of speech. Specifically, the only exceptions involve the following:
 
1. Content: Cannot be based upon content, i.e. any restrictions must remain content-neutral, even if the content is highly objectionable. This is the reason the Westboro Baptists can continue to protest military funerals despite the fact that 99% of society finds their behavior utterly reprehensible. Thus, no municipality can allow public protests supporting one side of an issue while denying those who are protesting the opposite side of the issue.
 
2. Time, place, and manner. Municipalities can place limited restrictions on time, place, and manner. For example, driving at 3 am (time) through neighborhoods (place) while blaring one’s point of view over loudspeakers We Will Not Be Silences(manner) violate all three. Such restrictions, however, must remain content-neutral. Thus, you cannot ban one group of protesters under any particular combination of time/place/manner while allowing another. The courts have also observed “similitude,” such that one time/place/manner is considered for all practical purposes as being substantially equivalent to another even details differ. Thus, a municipality cannot ban protests in one neighborhood while allowing them in another.
 
3. Prior restraint: “If the government tries to restrain speech before it is spoken, as opposed to punishing it afterwards, it must be able to show that punishment after the fact is not a sufficient remedy, and show that allowing the speech would “surely result in direct, immediate, and irreparable damage to our Nation and its people” (New York Times Co. v. United States). U.S. courts have not permitted most prior restraints since the case of Near v. Minnesota in 1931.
 
Bottom Line: Any and all claims related to “global warming” and “climate change” must stand on their own merits. The freedom to question the validity of ANY public opinion or policy directly relates to the ability of the people of our nation helping to keep our nation free by limiting the power and authority of all entities, most notably various institutions, including local, county, state, and federal governments, from infringing on our freedom of speech and of the press.
freedom of speech - Charles Bradlaugh

Weather Disasters Caused by Bad Decisions, not Global Warming or Climate Change

Dr. Jeff Masters, co-founder of Weather Underground, wrote a very interesting article entitled, “Earth’s 29 Billion-Dollar Weather Disasters of 2015: 4th Most on Record” today.

What I found most interesting about is the the fact he failed to mention the root cause of the disasters.

Here are the disaster basics:

  1. The count was very confusing.  After reading the article several times, he’s not saying the losses total $29 Billion.  He’s saying there were 29 weather disasters in 2015 whose individual costs for each disaster exceeded $1 billion.
  2. By comparison, there were 24 weather disasters, on average, whose individual costs exceeded $1 billion.
  3. The U.S. had eleven of the billion-dollar weather disasters.  China came in second with a count of six.
  4. I see no mention that the costs were adjusted for inflation.  Ergo, the most recent “records” might not be records at all.
  5. The values include drought, earthquakes and fires.  For example, Indonesia suffered from drought and fires.  Romania suffered from drought.  South Africa suffered from drought.  Ethiopia?  Drought.  Malawi suffered from rain-induced flooding; Vanuatu from a Category 5 tropical cyclone (hurricane); Chile from flooding; Dominica from flooding; Botswana from flooding.

Weather is NOT the root cause of these problems.  We’ve always had weather.  It is both natural and normal.  The root cause of these problems is man, but NOT in the way the Global Warming a.k.a. Climate Change screamers would like you to believe.  We have ALWAYS had weather on this planet, and it has often been more severe than it’s been lately.  It’s been both significantly hotter as well as significantly colder than it is today.  It’s been both significantly more violent as well as significantly more sedate than it is today.  During the more sedate periods, species differentiate and variety flourishes.  During more violent periods of rapid change, only the hardiest species survive while the rest die off.  This, too, is both normal and natural.  In fact, it’s the very basis of evolution.  Scientists fret about Earth being on the brink of a sixth mass extinction without realizing this would be our sixth mass extinction, not our first.  The others occurred 439 mya, 364 mya, 251 mya, 199 mya, and 65 mya.

Their claim that it’s “mostly due to human actions,” however, is utterly preposterous.

In fact, the first such event, the Ordovician-Silurian extinction that occurred 439 million years ago (mya) was caused by “a drop in sea levels as glaciers formed followed by rising sea levels as glaciers melted” (Source).  During the event, Earth lost 25% of marine families and 60% of marine genera.  Tragic?  No!  It was both normal and natural.  Mankind wouldn’t start appearing until another 436 my later.

The second such event, the Late Deonian extinction, occurred approximately 364 mya, with suspected global cooling and glaciation of Gondwana (a former mass continent, long since subducted) causing the extinction of of many warm water marine species.

The third such event, the Permian-Triassic extinction, occurred 251 mya.  Although no direct evidence has been found, scientists believe it was the result of a comet or asteroid impact that killed 95% of all species.  Again, mankind was till 248 my down the road.

The fourth such event, the End Triassic extinction, between 199 and 214 mya, resulted from massive lava floods caused by the breakup of Pangea and the opening of the Atlantic Ocean.  As this occurred over 15 my, a relatively small number of marine families, genera, and vertebrates occurred.  Mankind was still 196 my distant.

The fifth such event, the Cretaceous-Tertiary extinction, occurred 65 mya as either the result or aggravation of several mile-wide asteroid impacts, including the Chicxulub crater in Yucatan.  Other scientists say it was the result of gradual climate change.  Regardless, 16% of marine families, 47% of marine genera, and 18% of vertebrate families died, including the dinosaurs.

The point is that each and every one of these events occurred entirely due to NORMAL and NATURAL change and entirely without mankind in the picture.

So what have we learned?  We’ve learned that climate change is both normal and natural.  We’ve also learned that the root cause of the dollar damage involves bad choices made by man in terms of location, building design, and forestry management, and NOT because of the normal and natural weather patterns and climate here on Earth.

Let’s take a closer look at Indonesia:

The primary cause of Indonesia’s drought and fires was two-fold.  There’s been an increase in deforestation combined with managed forestry.  Historically, this leads to the suppression of many small natural fire events that weed out smaller growth thereby keeping the fuel for major fires to a minimum.  This type of “managed care” lead to the massive fires that raged through Yellowstone National Park in 1988.

As for disasters related to flooding, “never build on a flood plain.”  My father gave me that advice as I was seeking to buy my first house in 1994, but I first heard it from my grandfather in 1967, as my father was looking to buy his own first home.  Before buying my house, I went to the county’s land surveyor office and immediately crossed off three homes on my list because they were built on a flood plain.  We moved into one of the homes on my list that wasn’t on any flood plain, including the 500-year flood plain.  Just nine months later, the area experienced record rainfalls.  Basically, it rained nearly 24/7 for an entire month, flooding out all three of the homes I had crossed off my list.  In my home, however, we were high and dry.

Here’s another good piece of advice, dating back well over two thousand years:

“Everyone therefore who hears these words of mine, and does them, I will liken him to a wise man, who built his house on a rock. The rain came down, the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat on that house; and it didn’t fall, for it was founded on the rock. Everyone who hears these words of mine, and doesn’t do them will be like a foolish man, who built his house on the sand. The rain came down, the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat on that house; and it fell—and great was its fall.” – Matthew 7:24-27

The parable involves putting our trust in Jesus Christ, but relates to the common knowledge that building on rock is wise while building on sand is foolish.  The parable also mentions the rains, winds (hurricanes/cyclones), and flooding, the principle causes of most of the weather-related disasters in Dr. Jeff Master’s article.

The idea proposed by the GW/CC enthusiasts, that we somehow change the weather, is preposterous, insanely absurd.  In fact, even if we spent 100% of the damages on mitigating the effects weather change caused by mankind’s activities, it would have — at best — a 0.3% effect.

In order words, spend a million dollars and achieve a return of just three thousand dollars.  No matter how much one spent, you would only ever achieve a 0.3% (.003 factor) return on your investment.

That, ladies and gentlemen, would be the supreme height of arrogant, ignorant stupidity, a complete and utter waste of taxpayer dollars, not to mention the productivity of mankind in general.  Billions would die trying to pay for this insane scheme, yet that’s exactly what scientists would like you to believe is the best course of action, when in fact, it is the most absurd course of action on the planet with only one outcome that’s good for only one class of people, and that’s the trillions of dollars that would be spent lining the pockets of climate scientists.

Naturally, this brings us to my last word to the wise:  Follow the money.  In this case, it leads to the now-clear motive behind much of their finger-waggling.

So, instead of embarking on the ridiculously stupid, not to mention futile attempt to modify normal and natural climate change, let us instead do three things:

  1.  Never build on a flood plain.  If you do, have the common decency to build on pilings designed to withstand whatever a once in a 500 year flood will throw at you, and ensure the building is strong enough to withstand the winds and the rains.
  2. If you build out of primitive materials, consider using the environmentally-friendly hanok style of Korea, along with it’s sub-floor heating system known as ondol.  These homes are very sturdy, and have weathered the typhoon-ridden countries of N. and S. Korea for hundreds of years.  The round mound is another weather-proof design commonly found among peasant villages throughout N. and S. Korea.  Like geodesic domes, these designs can easily withstand very high cyclonic winds while providing good shelter against the cold and cooling against the summer heat.
  3. Stop putting out forest fires!  They are absolutely essential to controlling the undergrowth which, if left to grow in the absence of a major fire, produces enough fuel for catastrophic forest fires of the kind that burned in Indonesia.  At the very least, conduct regular, controlled burns to mimic what would occur in nature if left alone.  In a similar vein, stop deforesting large swaths of land by setting forest fires, the little known fact Dr. Jeff Masters failed to mention in his article.

Bottom line:  Mother Nature is not “steady-state.”  It never has been, and no matter how much we try, it never will be.  Instead, our Earth and its inhabitants have evolved to take care of life as we know it, even in the face of massive change.  Change is normal.  Change is natural.  What is neither normal nor natural is man coming along, being stupid by building on flood plains using stupid architecture incapable of standing up to seasonal hurricane winds while interrupting natural burn-out of undergrowth then whining about it all over mass media like blithering idiots.

Leading Climatologist Debunks the “Climate Change” Hype

This week in the House Natural Resources Committee, Congressman Doug Lamborn engaged in a fascinating dialogue with Mr. John Christy Professor of Atmospheric Science and State Climatologist National Space Science and Technology Center, University of Alabama. During their exchange, Professor Christy categorized the impact that a single project (such as a coal-fired power plant) would have on the climate of the planet would be, “like spitting in the ocean.” The professor also pointed out that real world atmospheric climate data collected by balloons and satellites over the last three decades has not matched up with the predictions laid out by the last three decades of climate modelling. 

“We must always strive to be good stewards of our environment. However, we must not cripple our economy and potential for growth and development with hugely expensive costs based on assertions that are being disputed and questioned within the scientific community. I commend Professor Christy for his courage in speaking up on this very important issue.”

– Congressman Doug Lamborn (CO-05)

Text of Professor Christy’s Testimony

I am John R. Christy, Distinguished Professor of Atmospheric Science, Alabama’s State Climatologist and Director of the Earth System Science Center at The University of Alabama in Huntsville. I have served as a Lead Author, Contributing Author and Reviewer of United Nations IPCC assessments, have been awarded NASA’s Medal for Exceptional Scientific Achievement, and in 2002 was elected a Fellow of the American Meteorological Society.

climate changeIt is a privilege for me to offer my analysis of the impact that proposed regulations might have on the climate system. My research area might be best described as building datasets from scratch to advance our understanding of what the climate is doing and why. I have used traditional surface observations as well as measurements from balloons and satellites to document the climate story. Many of our UAH datasets are used to test hypotheses of climate variability and change.

Impact of Single (or many) Federal Projects on Climate

The basic question under consideration here is to understand whether there is a causal relationship between the carbon emissions generated by a single proposed federal project and possible climate change related to those emissions. It is obvious that the emissions generated by a single project would be vanishingly small in comparison to the current emissions of the global economy or even of the United States as a whole. Because of the minuscule nature of the relative size of its emissions, the impact of a single project on the global climate system would be imperceptible.

To demonstrate any impact at all on the climate system, we must scale up the size of the emission changes to a much larger value than that of a single project. By doing so, our tools would then be climate changeable to provide some results. Let us assume, for example, that the total emissions from the United States are reduced to zero, today, 13 May 2015. In other words as of today and going forward, there would be no industry, no cars, no utilities, no people – i.e. the United States would cease to exist as of this day. With this we shall attempt to answer the question posed by the NEPA statement which is, essentially, what is the “climate change through GHG emissions.”

[Note: There seems to be some confusion here. The NEPA statement appears to call for the calculation of the amount of climate change brought about by the emission levels proposed for each project. However, the CEQ guidance states, “the potential effects of a proposed action on climate change as indicated by its GHG emissions.” The CEQ guidance, in effect, claims that any GHG emissions in some sense relate to all of the alleged consequences of extra GHGs. Thus, the guidance apparently seeks to claim emissions are a direct proxy for negative impacts of climate change (which as shown below has not been established) while skipping any calculation of that effect from the individual projects. Then, inconceivably, the guidance does not even consider the inarguably positive consequences of increases in GHG emissions which are quantifiable as well: (1) the enhancement of the length and quality of human life through affordable energy, and (2) the invigoration of the biosphere (specifically plant material used for human food).]

Using the U.N. IPCC impact tool known as Model for the Assessment of Greenhouse-gas Induced Climate Change or MAGICC, graduate student Rob Junod and I reduced the projected growth in total global emissions by U.S. emission contribution starting on this date and continuing on. We also used the value of the equilibrium climate sensitivity as determined from empirical techniques of 1.8 °C. After 50 years, the impact as determined by these model calculations would be only 0.05 to 0.08 °C – an amount less than that which the global temperature fluctuates from month to month. [These calculations used emission scenarios A1B-AIM and AIF-MI with U.S. emissions comprising 14 percent to 17 percent of the 2015 global emissions. There is evidence that the climate sensitivity is less than 1.8 °C, which would further lower these projections.]

Because changes in the emissions of our entire country would have such a tiny calculated impact on global climate, it is obvious that single projects, or even entire sectors of the economy would produce imperceptible impacts. In other words, there would be no evidence in the future to demonstrate that a particular climate impact was induced by the proposed regulations. Thus, the regulations will have no meaningful or useful consequence on the physical climate system – even if one believes climate models are useful tools for prediction.

How well do we understand the climate?

It is important to understand that projections of the future climate and the specific link that increasing CO2 might have on the climate are properly defined as scientific hypotheses or claims, not climate changeproof of such links. The projections being utilized for this and other policies are based on the output of climate model simulations. These models are complex computer programs which attempt to describe through mathematical equations as many factors that affect the climate as is possible and thus estimate how the climate might change in the future. The equations for many of the important processes are not exact, but represent the best approximations modelers can devise at this point.

A fundamental aspect of the scientific method is that if we say we understand a system (such as the climate system) then we should be able to predict its behavior. If we are unable to make accurate predictions, then at least some of the factors in the system are not well defined or perhaps even missing. [Note, however, that merely replicating the behavior of the system (i.e. reproducing “what” the climate does) does not guarantee that the fundamental physics are well-known. In other words, it is possible to obtain the right answer for the wrong reasons, i.e. getting the “what” of climate right but missing the “why”.]

Do we understand how greenhouse gases affect the climate, i.e. the link between emissions and climate effects? A very basic metric for climate studies is the temperature of the bulk atmospheric layer known as the troposphere, roughly from the surface to 50,000 ft altitude. This is the layer that, according to models, should warm significantly as CO2 increases. And, this CO2-caused warming should be easily detectible by now, according to models. This provides a good test of how well we understand the climate system because since 1979 we have had two independent means of monitoring this layer – satellites from above and balloons with thermometers released from the surface.

I was able to access 102 CMIP-5 rcp4.5 (representative concentration pathways) climate model simulations of the atmospheric temperatures for the tropospheric layer and generate bulk temperatures from the models for an apples-to-apples comparison with the observations from satellites and balloons. These models were developed in institutions throughout the world and used in the IPCC AR5 Scientific Assessment (2013).

The information in this figure provides clear evidence that the models have a strong tendency to over-warm the atmosphere relative to actual observations. On average the models warm the global atmosphere at a rate three times that of the real world. Using the scientific method we would conclude that the models do not accurately represent at least some of the important processes that impact the climate because they were unable to “predict” what has occurred. In other words, these models failed at the simple test of telling us “what” has already happened, and thus would not be in a position to give us a confident answer to “what” may happen in the future and “why.” As such, they would be of highly questionable value in determining policy that should depend on a very confident understanding of how the climate system works.

There is a related climate metric that also utilizes atmospheric temperature which in models has an even larger response than that of the global average shown above. This metric, then, provides a stronger test for understanding how well models perform regarding greenhouse gases specifically. In the models, the tropical atmosphere warms dramatically in response to the added greenhouse gases – more so than that of the global average atmospheric temperature.

In the tropical comparison here, the disparity between models and observations is even greater, with models on average warming this atmospheric region by a factor of four times greater than in reality. Such a result re-enforces the implication above that the models have much improvement to undergo before we may have confidence they will provide information about what the climate may do in the future or even why the climate varies as it does. For the issue at hand, estimates of how the global temperature might be affected by emission reductions from the halting of projects would be over done and not reliable. As such greenhouse gas emissions cannot be used as a proxy for alleged climate change because our capability to demonstrate how greenhouse gases influence the already-observed climate is so poor.

Alleged impacts of human-induced climate changes outlined in the CEQ Guidance

As stated in the bracketed paragraph earlier, the CEQ guidance attempts to equate any GHG emissions with all alleged impacts of these emissions, which as mentioned earlier is apparently not climate changeconsistent with NEPA. In other words, CO2 is assumed to be a direct proxy for alleged climate change due to human activities. However, these claimed impacts are not even consistently backed up by observational evidence: from the CEQ, “observed to date and projected to occur in the future include more frequent and intense heat waves, more severe wildfires, degraded air quality, more heavy downpours and flooding, increased drought, greater sea-level rise, more intense storms, harm to water resources, harm to agriculture, and harm to wildlife and ecosystems.” (Section II.B pp 6- 8.)

A simple examination of several of these alleged “observed to date” changes in the climate indicates the CEQ has evidently disregarded the actual observational record. I shall offer several examples which indicate these claims are misrepresentative.

In terms of heat waves, below is the number of 100 °F days observed in the U.S. from a controlled set of weather stations. It is not only clear that hot days have not increased, but it is interesting that in the most recent years there has been a relative dearth of them.

Forest and wild fires are documented for the US. The evidence below indicates there has not been any change in frequency of wildfires. The two figures above demonstrate that fire events have not increased in frequency in the United States during the past several decades.

The claims that droughts and floods are increasing may be examined by the observational record as well.

The two figures above demonstrate that moisture conditions have not shown a tendency to have decreased (more drought) or increased (more large-scale wetness). Such information is rarely consulted when it is more convenient simply to make unsubstantiated claims that moisture extremes, i.e. droughts and floods (which have always occurred), are somehow becoming even more extreme. Over shorter periods and in certain locations, there is evidence that the heaviest precipitation events are tending to be greater. This is not a universal phenomenon and it has not been established that such changes may be due to changes in greenhouse gas concentrations as demonstrated earlier because the model projections are unable to reproduce the simplest of metrics.

It is a simple matter to find documentation of the ever-rising production of grains. One wonders about the CEQ allegation that there has been “harm to agriculture” from human-induced climate change because when viewing the total growth in production, which appears to be accelerating, one would assume no “harm” has been done during a period of rising greenhouse gases.

With the evidence in these examples above, it is obviously difficult to establish the claims about worsening conditions due to human-caused climate change, or more generally that any change could be directly linked to increasing CO2. This point also relates to the issue of climate model capability noted earlier. It is clear that climate models fall short on some very basic issues of climate variability, being unable to reproduce “what” has happened regarding global temperature, and therefore not knowing “why” any of it happened. It is therefore premature to claim that one knows the causes for changes in various exotic measures of weather, such as rainfall intensity over short periods, which are not even explicitly generated in climate model output.

In summary, the information above indicates that preventing individual projects from going forward or even shutting down entire sectors of the energy economy will have no impact on the global climate system. Further, the information above indicates that the scientific understanding (i.e. climate models) of how increasing greenhouse gases are affecting the climate is rather poor, with no quantified and established link between emissions growth and specific changes in climate or disruptive weather.

End Text of Professor Christy’s Testimony

If you want to know why the climate change hoax continues, just follow the money:

– Poor countries want money from the rich countries

– University scientists want research and grant money from the government.

– Liberal politicians want more control over our energy resources and evermore taxpayer dollars to feed the greed.

The climate change hoax is deep-seated in both ideology and money.

By the way, technically, it’s not a “climate change” hoax.  It’s an “anthropogenic global warming” hoax.  The IPCC changed “AGW” to “Climate Change” so they could hide behind the fact that climate change is real, and has been for billions of years, while still bilking the world (that’s you and I) out of trillions of dollars.